• All threads and posts regarding Coronavirus COVID-19 can be found in our area specifically for Coronavirus COVID-19 discussion.

    You can directly access this area >here<.

Boris Johnson's £86,000 maximum outlay for care.

lastotter

New member
Aug 22, 2021
7
0
I understand that this will start in October 2023. Does this mean that anyone self-funding prior to this date will still have to pay the full £86k starting from Oct next year?
Also it seems that it doesn't include 'accommodation' which, presumably, means laundry services, cleaning, food and possibly more. Does anyone have an idea of how much the average cost for this might be?
 

Susan11

Registered User
Nov 18, 2018
4,291
0
I understand that this will start in October 2023. Does this mean that anyone self-funding prior to this date will still have to pay the full £86k starting from Oct next year?
Also it seems that it doesn't include 'accommodation' which, presumably, means laundry services, cleaning, food and possibly more. Does anyone have an idea of how much the average cost for this might be?
I understand the "hotel cost" will be fixed at £200 per week.
 

MaNaAk

Registered User
Jun 19, 2016
7,542
0
Essex
I understand that this will start in October 2023. Does this mean that anyone self-funding prior to this date will still have to pay the full £86k starting from Oct next year?
Also it seems that it doesn't include 'accommodation' which, presumably, means laundry services, cleaning, food and possibly more. Does anyone have an idea of how much the average cost for this might be?
It would be a good idea if they could stay for a few weeks themselves!
 

nitram

Registered User
Apr 6, 2011
25,087
0
North Manchester
Does this mean that anyone self-funding prior to this date will still have to pay the full £86k starting from Oct next year?
If the proposals are passed, yes.

If, like previous abandoned versions of Dilnot, the £86k is calculated on assessed cost of assessed care many people will spend considerably more than £86k to reach the limit.

The assessed cost can be compared to what LAs currently are prepared to pay for residential care.
 

Susan11

Registered User
Nov 18, 2018
4,291
0
If the proposals are passed, yes.

If, like previous abandoned versions of Dilnot, the £86k is calculated on assessed cost of assessed care many people will spend considerably more than £86k to reach the limit.

The assessed cost can be compared to what LAs currently are prepared to pay for residential care.
Nitram is there anyway of estimating what the total costs are likely to be?
 

nitram

Registered User
Apr 6, 2011
25,087
0
North Manchester
Nitram is there anyway of estimating what the total costs are likely to be?
Assume you mean cost to resident to reach £86k.

A guesstimate is to look at current LA funding level, assume that future payments will be similar (is this figure reduced by accommodation cost?) and start doing sums to find out how long to reach £86K
Then estimate how much resident could have paid in that time .

As earlier proposals were clarified there were several calculations indicating many residents would never reach the cap.
 

Susan11

Registered User
Nov 18, 2018
4,291
0
Assume you mean cost to resident to reach £86k.

A guesstimate is to look at current LA funding level, assume that future payments will be similar (is this figure reduced by accommodation cost?) and start doing sums to find out how long to reach £86K
Then estimate how much resident could have paid in that time .

As earlier proposals were clarified there were several calculations indicating many residents would never reach the cap.
Thanks. I'll have a go at working it out.
 

nitram

Registered User
Apr 6, 2011
25,087
0
North Manchester
Thanks. I'll have a go at working it out.
Have a look at

"Case study: Yusuf

...
...

Yusuf’s care home costs £700 per week.
...

..."

The £700 assumes Yusuf can get care at £700 - the assessed cost - he's not allowed to use up his £86k cap paying £1200 meaning the LA start funding him earlier, the £500 doesn't count.
Is a placement at £700 always going to be available?
 

Susan11

Registered User
Nov 18, 2018
4,291
0
Have a look at

"Case study: Yusuf

...
...

Yusuf’s care home costs £700 per week.
...

..."

The £700 assumes Yusuf can get care at £700 - the assessed cost - he's not allowed to use up his £86k cap paying £1200 meaning the LA start funding him earlier, the £500 doesn't count.
Is a placement at £700 always going to be available?
Thanks Nitram. That's really helpful. Which ever way you look at it it's not as good an offer as it sounds!
 

Jaded'n'faded

Registered User
Jan 23, 2019
3,190
0
High Peak
Have a look at

"Case study: Yusuf

...
...

Yusuf’s care home costs £700 per week.
...

..."

The £700 assumes Yusuf can get care at £700 - the assessed cost - he's not allowed to use up his £86k cap paying £1200 meaning the LA start funding him earlier, the £500 doesn't count.
Is a placement at £700 always going to be available?
Hi @nitram - can you clarify? Reading the above, it suggests that anyone who pays more for their care home than the absolute cheapest care home available in the area, will fall foul of this when it comes to totting up how much they have spent on care?

e.g. Jane's care home costs £800 per week. As it has been determined that she could have gone in the cheaper place down the road that's only £700 per week, £100 of her weekly costs will not be counted towards the £86,000 maximum.

Is that right? Also, where does the £200 per week accommodation cost fit into this? In the example for Jane, above, would it actually work that her weekly cost is £800, less £100 (because it's not the cheapest place), less £200 accommodation cost = £500 per week going towards the savings cap?

It seems to me this policy is fatally flawed! How can everyone ensure they get a place at the cheapest home? (And why the heck should they? It is their money to spend as they wish...) Who decides the amount of £700? (Presumably it will vary for different areas of the country.) What if someone needs more care than the basic cheap place can provide? Do you only get a max of £700 towards care whatever care you need? Most EMI places are at least twice that amount.
 

Jaded'n'faded

Registered User
Jan 23, 2019
3,190
0
High Peak
Also, reading through the case study for Mary & Bob (on the same link) I notice that they fail to mention that if the couple remained in their home and received care at home, they wouldn't pay for any of it as the house would be disregarded and they only have £10,000 in savings.

Which is interesting. As the Upper Capital Limit is being increased to £100,000 from the current £23,500, a lot more people will fall below it if they live (and receive care) in their own homes due to the disregard. I wonder if we will see an increase in SS pushing for people to go into carehomes as that will free up their house for funding?
 

nitram

Registered User
Apr 6, 2011
25,087
0
North Manchester
Hi @nitram - can you clarify? Reading the above, it suggests that anyone who pays more for their care home than the absolute cheapest care home available in the area, will fall foul of this when it comes to totting up how much they have spent on care?

e.g. Jane's care home costs £800 per week. As it has been determined that she could have gone in the cheaper place down the road that's only £700 per week, £100 of her weekly costs will not be counted towards the £86,000 maximum.

Is that right?
As I understand it, yes.
Only assessed cost for assessed care counts towards the cap.
First party top up is allowed.

Also, where does the £200 per week accommodation cost fit into this? In the example for Jane, above, would it actually work that her weekly cost is £800, less £100 (because it's not the cheapest place), less £200 accommodation cost = £500 per week going towards the savings cap?
Rational behind the DLC is that those in a domestic situation don't get paid DLC so why should those in residential care.


It seems to me this policy is fatally flawed! How can everyone ensure they get a place at the cheapest home? (And why the heck should they? It is their money to spend as they wish...) Who decides the amount of £700? (Presumably it will vary for different areas of the country.) What if someone needs more care than the basic cheap place can provide? Do you only get a max of £700 towards care whatever care you need? Most EMI places are at least twice that amount.

Previous attempts at implementing Dilnot have failed for various reasons mainly based on unworkability.
The disparity between funding and market rates has to be fixed.
 

Starting on a journey

Registered User
Jul 9, 2019
887
0
There is also the bit about social services making preferred rates with providers available to all, including self funders……..copied and pasted below;

Section 18(3) of the 2014 Care Act allows self-funders to request that their local authority commissions their care, in the same way as those who are supported by the means test. It was commenced in 2015 in relation to domiciliary care and we plan to roll this out further. Further details of the calculation of an IPB and self-funders asking local authorities to arrange their care will be confirmed following the coproduction of the statutory operational guidance on these reforms and be subject to the following consultation on that guidance early next year.

I think the intention is that self funders are charged the same price by homes which take local authority cases.

I think the whole industry must be trying to absorb and understand the changes as the amount of self funders could reduce drastically if the ceiling is raised to £100k …..(if you are one of a couple that’s an awful lot of spare cash to have each!)

The main implication will be with the local authority who will have to introduce these systems and will see many more clients. Even if you are self funding you will want social services involved so that you get your account started.

On balance I think that social services will be the “ weakest link” in the system.
 

nitram

Registered User
Apr 6, 2011
25,087
0
North Manchester
Even if you are self funding you will want social services involved so that you get your account started.
When I was personally involved that was one of the aspects that caused the can to be kicked along the road, all self funders paying for care without any reference to the LA decided they wanted to be assessed and the LA's proposed using a third party or employing extra staff.
There was also a scheme to pay a standard lump sum to an insurer to cover all future care, no insurers took the bait.

I think the intention is that self funders are charged the same price by homes which take local authority cases.

Homes do not have to take LA funded residents.
With £100k/ person to go at and first party top ups allowed people may regard the LA rate as a discount and go to more expensive homes. (will this be allowed?)